I notice in the Supplementary Estimate that there is a very substantial amount required for the calf heifer scheme—£2 million more than the original estimate. It was only £405,000, estimated to be spent in the financial year when this Estimate came before us, and now the Minister requires, in addition to the £405,000, a further £2,550,000. I think the explanation should be available. When the Estimate was before the House some time ago, it should have been possible to indicate more precisely the amount that would be required during the current year for this scheme. Possibly, it will be explained that when this Estimate was being prepared, it was expected that only people engaged in agriculture and farming would be applying, and qualifying, for these grants. Instead of that, we have a situation where a number of financiers with money stacked away have decided that it is good business to cash in on this scheme. The result is they are able to get the full benefit of this scheme, whereas the ordinary farmers cannot.
Let us take the example of an ordinary farmer who already has ten cows. If he increases his stock to 11, and then has 11 calves, he still gets only one grant. If these financiers, who never had cattle and know nothing about cattle, get 11 heifers, they will get 11 grants. That is one explanation for the very large amount now required, that is, it is required for people who have devised ways and means of qualifying for payments of these grants. It was stated earlier in the House that the average payment here is only two heifers per claimant. It is difficult to understand that. I know of some moneyed people who have bought large stocks of heifers in order to get £15 apiece and qualify for this payment.
I would be interested to learn from the Minister at this stage if he would give us a clearer picture regarding the amount of money now required. It is such a colossal increase on the original Estimate that there must be some concrete explanation for it. The experts, in making out the Estimate, should not have been so much astray in forecasting what the demand by the Department was likely to be during the current year. I feel a claim has come in here from sources which were not anticipated by our experts in the Department when this Estimate was originally being prepared.
I still feel it is not the right type of scheme to increase our livestock population here. I believe this £2,550,000 should be available instead to the smaller farmer who is the backbone of livestock production, who is engaged full-time in the business of livestock rearing, and who, consequently, should have the benefit of this. It is well known, and I think the Minister will not contradict me, that quite a number of people who will qualify once for payment of these subsidies will not seek to qualify again, because, having harvested this windfall in the form of this subsidy, they will not be able to qualify again. Take one of these financiers who buys 100 heifers and qualifies then for the payment of 100 subsidies of £15 each. That man will probably finish with that business as soon as the calves are reared and those cattle disposed of, unless he decides to go into business under another name and qualifies again for payment of subsidies on another 100 heifers.
The ordinary small farmer is not able to adopt these devices and his chances of qualifying even for one grant of £15 are very remote, if he is fully stocked already. He has not the accommodation and the means to enable him to increase his stock even by one heifer per annum in order to get the extra £15. There is a limit to the expansion he is capable of. On the other hand, the man who is engaged full-time and is producing ten or 20 calves per annum would benefit better from a scheme which would make the subsidy payable in respect of each calf instead of in respect of each extra heifer brought into calf production.
I should like to hear from the Minister specifically why there is such a big difference between the additional sum required in the current year and the original Estimate of only £405,000. I think it demands a lot of explanation. It reminds me of the time the financiers were going into wheat production and availing of the subsidies. There was one company called the Pure Ice and Cold Storage Company who had something like 1,000 acres of land under wheat. There was a period of very bad weather during that time and they lost a lot, but they were prepared to speculate and put their money into this business of wheat production about which they knew nothing. This heifer scheme seems an easier way of getting money handy, that is, to buy 100 heifers and qualify for 100 calves after keeping them the requisite period and then disposing of them as beef. I think that is the result that is envisaged, but in the long run I do not think it will be of a great advantage to our livestock population or to the people who are the backbone of that industry. They are the people who should have this money within their reach and they should be able to qualify by having the money payable on calves instead of this calved heifer scheme.
I am glad to see that additional moneys are required for different sections of the Department but we must face up to the fact that a substantial part of the Estimate is for increased salaries and allowances owing to the manner in which the Government are running the country in relation to the cost of living and to the reduction in the value of earnings and salaries. The farm building scheme is one that deserves to be encouraged because in this modern age, housing accommodation in every farm, particularly in the small farms, is very important. There is a great lack of housing accommodation amongst our smaller farmers, a lack of accommodation suitable for providing a shelter for livestock and the produce of the farm.